Religion and Diplomacy

<![CDATA[The current Utne Reader reprints a short article on “Faith in Diplomacy” from Jewish journal Moment Magazine. Marshall Breger’s premise is that the U.S. ignores religion in diplomatic negotiations at its peril. Claiming that modernization does not necessarily imply secularism, the author points out the activity of religious leaders in developing peace in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Breger notes that America expresses religion at home, but not abroad. There are surveys indicating that western Europe has become the most secular society on earth, while the U.S. has place religion closer to politics. A 2002 Pew survey showed clearly that Americans consider religion far more appropriate in public life than Europeans. The present administration clearly has faith-based policies and actions, especially in the international forum. Yet Breger says we separate religion from international affairs, seeing it as irrelevant to diplomatic discussion, a personal thing. While not denying the damaging role religion can play in the world (including the Catholic Church’s disapproval of condoms to prevent AIDS), he writes, “Only by understanding religion can we mobilize it as a force for reconciliation and as an ally in the search for peaceful solutions.”

I agree, up to a point. I would certainly prefer to think that secular Enlightenment rationalism could promote world peace. At the same time, acts of war and genocide seem to me primarily irrational, caused by emotion rather than sense. Similarly, religious impulses (even at their best) are based on non-intellectual response. The religious beliefs of individuals and groups can be corrupted into supporting horrible acts of violence against other human beings. So it makes sense that religion could be used to fight such violence.

On the other hand, I cannot agree with Breger’s side-lining of religion-caused horrors in world history. When religion and politics merge, the irrationality of faith combines dangerously with what should be the rationality of politics. And to Americans, politics means democracy. This in itself is a problem, since the U.S. tendency is to promote democracy as if it were a religion. Democracy is a form of government, and in some places it has existed politically while presiding over horrific violations of human rights. India and Israel come to mind as examples of democracies where governments have put their own stability above the lives of their citizens. Thus I find the heavy influence of religion in today’s U.S. domestic political system to be frightening rather than evidence of a kinder, gentler, post-modern, spiritually-informed age.

I do not think it necessary, as Breger’s article implies, that religous leaders take the main role in international diplomacy. At the same time, I agree whole-heartedly that knowledge of religions is crucial to world diplomacy. Since so much of the world holds religious precepts in such high regard, any diplomat should study the tenets of all the major world religions, and certainly in more depth than a survey course in college. American diplomats should be highly educated in laws derived from the Koran and the Torah. It makes rational sense that one does not go into a diplomatic situation with only a single national mindset. To have extensive knowledge of the cultures one is encountering is basic training for a career in diplomacy. This has not changed, even if the religous aspect is seen as playing a greater role than before.

The solution is not to abandon secularism in favor of religion, but to understand the expressions of faith as an aid to promoting diplomatic conversation and preventing conflict. It is, as Breger notes, a “tool of statecraft”.

]]>